The mancityfans.net football forum

This is the perfect time to get behind Mancini now, that smug little prick in mourinho coming out making out he's to good for city, not saying it but acting it, fuck him, we don't need him, Mancini no matter what! Despite some strange things he does at times, Mancini woahh!

I'm pretty sure that only the the slackest of slack Man City supporters would be out for Mancini's guts after tonights performance.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't question his tactics though.

If he just wasn't such a stubborn bastard with his immature back three nonsense, there wouldn't even be a discussion, Champions League failure or not.

Beefymcfc wrote:I'm pretty sure that only the the slackest of slack Man City supporters would be out for Mancini's guts after tonights performance.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't question his tactics though.

I agree and I think the support he was shown today by the home crowd makes it perfectly safe to discuss his weaknesses as a manager without the debate turning into an Mancini-out debate.

When was the last time a City manager had such a backing from the fans? It's refreshing anyway.

I'll back him but his tinkering is hurting us more than helping us. The spurs turn around is the only example I can think of that changing from 4 at the back has helped, oh, pre season and community shield aside.
Not sure what it is he is trying to fix. Yes, we need to be able to break teams down, but the wingbacks don't seem to be helping and 9 times out of ten we have 2 midgets in the middle giving limited options on the cross.
We started last season breaking all records playing with pace. None of us expected it after the season before but it was great and we destroyed teams. Half way through it stopped and rarely reappears. Where has that approach gone? We hardly comceeded and were scoring shed loads. It's hard for the other team to score when you have the ball.
Bunch of arseholes, but Madrid played with real pace and very quickly turned defence into attack.
I'm not saying we need to be cavalier about it, but switching to a style with yaya higher up the pitch, maintaining a back 4, helped us more last year than this current tactic. Irritating that he has changed it.

if you ask the opposition to take the same approach as they took against us last time we beat them, then we'd be fine sticking with the same formation and tactics.
We are facing a lot of teams (including last night) with one up front, packed midfields, bus parked, especially if they hit us with a sucker punch.
The result is we are finding it harder to break them down and they are often playing on the break or relying on set pieces (conspicuous exception Dortmund who outplayed us).
If Mancini wasn't adapting to the way the oppo sets up we'd be pissed off.
3 at the back is a perfectly logical approach against a team with one up top. We need to get better at it. We also need to defend set pieces better, but the 5 nil and last night show we still have the potential to outplay teams and defend well which is what Champions do. They also adapt and have the potential to surprise.

Alex Sapphire wrote:if you ask the opposition to take the same approach as they took against us last time we beat them, then we'd be fine sticking with the same formation and tactics.
We are facing a lot of teams (including last night) with one up front, packed midfields, bus parked, especially if they hit us with a sucker punch.
The result is we are finding it harder to break them down and they are often playing on the break or relying on set pieces (conspicuous exception Dortmund who outplayed us).
If Mancini wasn't adapting to the way the oppo sets up we'd be pissed off.
3 at the back is a perfectly logical approach against a team with one up top. We need to get better at it. We also need to defend set pieces better, but the 5 nil and last night show we still have the potential to outplay teams and defend well which is what Champions do. They also adapt and have the potential to surprise.

3 at the back against a side with 1 striker, means you have 3 players marking one striker, rather than two or even one, & are a man short elsewhere. If your team is not used to playing it, or the individuals involved are not used to playing together, you have situations where they all stand watching wondering who is doing what, as the ball sails into our penalty area.

Every time we start to get our shit together, he introduces a new problem for the players to deal with.

If it was such a good idea, why did he change it ?

If it was such a good idea to change to it in Amsterdam, why did he change it again ?

If the players have spent a year on & off working on this & some of his other bizarre European creations, I have no problem trying them WHEN NEEDED. The 2nd half of that game proved what most City fans, football people, media etc know which is that the closest City get to playing their normal game, in their normal formation, is the closest City get to competing in the Champions League.

That doesn't mean we win every game or the competition, just that we don't keep making twats of ourselves, or rather that Mancini doesn't keep making twats of us.

As for the OP about fucking supporting him; I don't recon hardly anybody in that fucking grund thought he'd got it right tactically, & it was so exposed that he should be embarrassed, yet we all sang his name loudly.

If that support isn't good enough, then what are we supposed to do ? Queue up to suck his dick whilst waving 'I love Roberto' placards ?

I think everyone in the ground knew he had got it wrong tactically last night very soon after the game started and I include Mancini himself in that conclusion. I also wonder if he realised he had got it wrong with Dzeko starting and playing 2 up front which for me was the wrong decision.

RM have 2 very very good centre backs who like nothing more than a big guy to mark.I thought it cried out for a much more fluid approach with a 5 man midfield (one of them could/should have been a deep lying Carlos) with plenty of movement and interchanging.

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:I think everyone in the ground knew he had got it wrong tactically last night very soon after the game started and I include Mancini himself in that conclusion. I also wonder if he realised he had got it wrong with Dzeko starting and playing 2 up front which for me was the wrong decision.

RM have 2 very very good centre backs who like nothing more than a big guy to mark.I thought it cried out for a much more fluid approach with a 5 man midfield (one of them could/should have been a deep lying Carlos) with plenty of movement and interchanging.

I think you're right about Dzeko/2 up front too, & I think we may be stronger in the Prem in some games staring with just 1, but I put that kind of mistake in the 'acceptable' or 'understandable' bracket.

The roles of both Dzeko & Kolarov deserve discussion (yet again) I think.

In fact I feel a thread coming on!

Ted Hughes wrote:

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:I think everyone in the ground knew he had got it wrong tactically last night very soon after the game started and I include Mancini himself in that conclusion. I also wonder if he realised he had got it wrong with Dzeko starting and playing 2 up front which for me was the wrong decision.

RM have 2 very very good centre backs who like nothing more than a big guy to mark.I thought it cried out for a much more fluid approach with a 5 man midfield (one of them could/should have been a deep lying Carlos) with plenty of movement and interchanging.

I think you're right about Dzeko/2 up front too, & I think we may be stronger in the Prem in some games staring with just 1, but I put that kind of mistake in the 'acceptable' or 'understandable' bracket.

The roles of both Dzeko & Kolarov deserve discussion (yet again) I think.

In fact I feel a thread coming on!

this was not the first time Roberto made a mistake when starting Kolarov in midfield/wing position and then trying to unfuck it with half time substitution.

Alex Sapphire wrote:if you ask the opposition to take the same approach as they took against us last time we beat them, then we'd be fine sticking with the same formation and tactics.
We are facing a lot of teams (including last night) with one up front, packed midfields, bus parked, especially if they hit us with a sucker punch.
The result is we are finding it harder to break them down and they are often playing on the break or relying on set pieces (conspicuous exception Dortmund who outplayed us).
If Mancini wasn't adapting to the way the oppo sets up we'd be pissed off.
3 at the back is a perfectly logical approach against a team with one up top. We need to get better at it. We also need to defend set pieces better, but the 5 nil and last night show we still have the potential to outplay teams and defend well which is what Champions do. They also adapt and have the potential to surprise.

I understand where you're coming from but we keep having to dig ourselves out of the shit by reverting to a system that you say is easy to play against.
Hate to mention the scum, but their approach hasn't changed for years, teams have been parking the bus for all that time as well. A consistent approach with good players, and ours are better than most, would work better.
Last year we were fluid. Once the other team had the ball, we dropped one back in to pack the midfield and then when we got it back, that player advanced. That role was yaya's and we are missing it.
Let defenders defend and attackers attack. It's bloody irritating when zabaletta is the most advanced player with the ball. The approach worked as the wingback had broken, but he has no bloody idea what to do with it and has to bust a bollock to get back when it breaks down.

Mancini should not be making the tactical errors he is making, certainly not if he wants to be considered a top echelon manager. Starting with 3-5-2 against Real Madrid was really poor judgement, plain and simple. His changes against Spurs were excellent but is one of a few examples of him directly influencing a game for the better that I can think of.

I am moe concerned about the 1st half-2nd half Jeckell andf Hyde that this team has beocme. Often dour in the 1st, usually excellent in the 2nd. Weird.

Beefymcfc wrote:I'm pretty sure that only the the slackest of slack Man City supporters would be out for Mancini's guts after tonights performance.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't question his tactics though.

A+

For me the team selection (rightly or wrongly) had alot to do with keeping Carlos fresh for Sunday

s1ty m wrote:Mancini should not be making the tactical errors he is making, certainly not if he wants to be considered a top echelon manager. Starting with 3-5-2 against Real Madrid was really poor judgement, plain and simple. His changes against Spurs were excellent but is one of a few examples of him directly influencing a game for the better that I can think of.

I am moe concerned about the 1st half-2nd half Jeckell andf Hyde that this team has beocme. Often dour in the 1st, usually excellent in the 2nd. Weird.

Not sure it's that different mate. The Mancini principle has always been similar. Bore/pass them to death for 45 or 60 minutes, then really ramp up the pace when the oppo has been running around chasing you for the whole match and is totally knackered. Rarely fails.

Im behind him but i cannot get my head round the way he fucks about with the defence in europe. Stick to a fucking flat back 4!

its getting frustrating, if its the same again next year then i'll be questioning whether i want him here. We need to start progressing in that competition. no more excuses of lack of experience (which is a load of shit by the way)

john@staustell wrote:

s1ty m wrote:Mancini should not be making the tactical errors he is making, certainly not if he wants to be considered a top echelon manager. Starting with 3-5-2 against Real Madrid was really poor judgement, plain and simple. His changes against Spurs were excellent but is one of a few examples of him directly influencing a game for the better that I can think of.

I am moe concerned about the 1st half-2nd half Jeckell andf Hyde that this team has beocme. Often dour in the 1st, usually excellent in the 2nd. Weird.

Not sure it's that different mate. The Mancini principle has always been similar. Bore/pass them to death for 45 or 60 minutes, then really ramp up the pace when the oppo has been running around chasing you for the whole match and is totally knackered. Rarely fails.

We said exactly this on the way back from the Villa game.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Alex Sapphire wrote:if you ask the opposition to take the same approach as they took against us last time we beat them, then we'd be fine sticking with the same formation and tactics.
We are facing a lot of teams (including last night) with one up front, packed midfields, bus parked, especially if they hit us with a sucker punch.
The result is we are finding it harder to break them down and they are often playing on the break or relying on set pieces (conspicuous exception Dortmund who outplayed us).
If Mancini wasn't adapting to the way the oppo sets up we'd be pissed off.
3 at the back is a perfectly logical approach against a team with one up top. We need to get better at it. We also need to defend set pieces better, but the 5 nil and last night show we still have the potential to outplay teams and defend well which is what Champions do. They also adapt and have the potential to surprise.

3 at the back against a side with 1 striker, means you have 3 players marking one striker, rather than two or even one, & are a man short elsewhere. If your team is not used to playing it, or the individuals involved are not used to playing together, you have situations where they all stand watching wondering who is doing what, as the ball sails into our penalty area.

Every time we start to get our shit together, he introduces a new problem for the players to deal with.

If it was such a good idea, why did he change it ?

If it was such a good idea to change to it in Amsterdam, why did he change it again ?

If the players have spent a year on & off working on this & some of his other bizarre European creations, I have no problem trying them WHEN NEEDED. The 2nd half of that game proved what most City fans, football people, media etc know which is that the closest City get to playing their normal game, in their normal formation, is the closest City get to competing in the Champions League.

That doesn't mean we win every game or the competition, just that we don't keep making twats of ourselves, or rather that Mancini doesn't keep making twats of us.

As for the OP about fucking supporting him; I don't recon hardly anybody in that fucking grund thought he'd got it right tactically, & it was so exposed that he should be embarrassed, yet we all sang his name loudly.

If that support isn't good enough, then what are we supposed to do ? Queue up to suck his dick whilst waving 'I love Roberto' placards ?

Don't understand your first sentence at all. It has precisely the opposite effect
And I said it was logical not that it was good
But it has the potential to be good

and why is he trying it at all?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/feb/22/napoli-italy-back-three-resurgent

Beefymcfc wrote:I'm pretty sure that only the the slackest of slack Man City supporters would be out for Mancini's guts after tonights performance.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't question his tactics though.

Spot on..thats how I feel.I just want the cunt to LEARN from past mistakes ffs !!!!

carl_feedthegoat wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:I'm pretty sure that only the the slackest of slack Man City supporters would be out for Mancini's guts after tonights performance.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't question his tactics though.

Spot on..thats how I feel.I just want the cunt to LEARN from past mistakes ffs !!!!

He might want the new CEO where he can see them !

Alex Sapphire wrote:Don't understand your first sentence at all. It has precisely the opposite effect

No, it doesn't. You want an extra man in defence, but not two.

3-5-2 v 4-4-2


3-5-2 v 4-3-3


http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/24/three-man-defence-in-football

The article's a bit old, but it illustrates the perks & downsides of a back three v certain attacking formations well enough.